It is getting harder to make a dishonest living these days. In particular, burglaring doesn't pay any more, just as running a movie rental outlet doesn't pay, or running a shop that makes photo copies. Technology is rendering old fashioned property crimes, at least, somewhat obsolete.
Most of us know now that crime rates have been going down, even during the recession (or whatever it is we have been in since 2008). One happy effect in social science is an end to claims that bad times cause bad crimes. It never was true. Crime rates were low in the Great Depression and high in the roaring '60s. Now even the media have caught on.
So what does account for falling crime rates? Several ideas are offered, and each has some validity. The most obvious explanation is that we have more criminals in prison now than ever before. For example, they can't rob people (except maybe other prisoners) when they are behind bars.
One excellent analysis was offered in the Wall Street Journal by James Q. Wilson, who sites a number of factors.
Dr. Wilson, the Christian Science Monitor and others make good points.
I'd just add this one, at least apropos property crimes such as burglaries and robberies: There is not as much around to steal that one can sell easily, and selling it doesn't bring in enough for a crook to live on.
1) There's not as much money lying around to steal. Pick someone's pockets and you'll find slim pickin's. You can't use the credit cards for long and the ATM cards are useless without the pin number. People just don't carry as much cash on them these days and they don't have it around the house, either.
Cyber crime is another matter, and so specifically is credit card fraud. That is why we keep getting better security measures. Nothing, of course, seems to stop that lady in Nigeria (or Burkina Faso, or wherever she's hanging out this week) from offering to let me have part of her encumbered inheritance worth $20 million if I will just e-mail her my bank account number. At least she isn't trying to climb through my window or rifle my suit jacket.
2) I suspect (but can't prove) that precious jewels and gold and silver plate are not as common as they were a generation or so ago. Young married women have snazzy diamonds on their fingers, but the diamond brooch or necklace--the one kept under the drawers in the drawer of the dresser--are just not as fashionable as of yore. Same with watches. If you have it, you wear it. You don't leave a couple of fine watches at home.
How many families dine on solid silver any more? A thief could waste a whole evening looking for such items.
3) People may own expensive computers and televisions, but the second hand market is stuffed with these items. And you again have the problem of fencing them. Some people make video records of their possessions, and others put indelible markings on them. Some may even attach traceable microchips. What burglar has time to inspect the goods he steals?
4) In similar fashion, expensive paintings, objets d'art, antiques and Persian carpets may attract the sophisticated second story man, but how many of such items are easy to appraise by flashlight or peddle once they are out of the house? You need at least some training in art appreciation to steal something worthwhile, and then who do you sell it to? Can you imagine some punk trying to peddle a painting to a fence and having to argue its worth? Why bother? Sell them on E-Bay; why not just email the police and get it over with?
Clothes? You're kidding. Just try finding a buyer for someone's used fur coat--even your own!
5) Police for two decades have improved their interaction with pawn shops and have pursued fences of stolen goods more rigorously; and they have more surveillance. That makes targets harder, too. (Several analysts do make this point.)
Even in a recession our society is relatively well off. It takes a lot of loot to get along, and crime just doesn't pay like it used to. Maybe those jobs have been outsourced.
Leave a comment